The math would be wrong. Energy exists.
(me) It can't be created according to the First Law. (you) Hello?
OK, new energy can't be added to the system which we call "The Universe." Yet, energy does exists in "The Universe" and hence comes from somewhere.
Actually, I think I've seen physicist explain conservation laws as being the result of symmetry relationships. That's not the same as being able to recapitulate what he said. But why the First Law exists is a different subject from claiming that the great minds of physics are trying to beat the First Law. The little minds of charlatanry are trying to do that.
Fair enough. So you won't buy my perpetual motion machine?
You didn't follow that link's argument very well. Gravity is negative energy. Each body's gravity exactly cancels the energy of its mass. I believe the concept originated with John Archibald Wheeler's group back in the 1940s.
At any rate, the point is that the sum throughout the universe is zero, but locally there can and do exist positive amounts. Gravity is the balancing negative.
How can that be? Gravity is the work you have to do to haul masses apart. It's a work/energy deficit.
Drop an anvil down a dry well. You get seismic waves rippling away. You get sound. There's energy released, but that's only because there was energy stored in having the anvil up out of the well in the first place.
Want to do it again? You've got to do work amounting to the potential lost when you dropped the anvil down in there.